Welcome to the Evidence Act 2008


This blog was started back when the Evidence Act 2008 was nothing more than a gleam in Parliament's eye. It was an attempt to further understanding of some challenging new legislation when information about it was difficult to find.

Since then, many authors and luminaries have turned their minds to the complex issues the Act obliges Victorian lawyers to engage with. A blog devoted exclusively to this one piece of legislation isn't necessary, and is impossible for us to give the attention it deserves.

If you're looking for a more conventional blog posting on topical legal issues, have a look at Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? by the same authors.

This site is no substitute for legal advice from an Australian lawyer. If you have a legal problem, it's great that you are doing a bit of research, but go consult a professional.




2010-04-13

JCV online test 3

The latest quiz from the Judicial College of Victoria tests understanding of applications to cross-examine under s 38 and also credibility evidence under the Evidence Act.

Cross-examining one's own witnesses isn't well-understood, perhaps because it breaks from a long line of judicial authority on hostile and adverse witnesses. In R v BDF [1999] NSWCCA 98, Dowd J observed:

[34] There is a considerable tendency for those familiar with the law before the Act, to find the procedure of s 38 of the Act somewhat difficult to adjust to. Section 38 of the Act is one of the most important provisions of the new Evidence Act. Although there appears to be something unjust about a witness who is cross-examined by the opposing party and then subject to cross-examination by the party calling the witness, this is clearly the intention of the Act. The unfavourable evidence which comes out may come out at any stage.


There's some commentary now posted here under s 38. It's mostly recycled from a QCIC post from last year, with passing reference to the first thorough application of s 38 in Victorian courts: DPP v McRae [2010] VSC 114. I hope to add more to this soon.

Read more...
2009-07-05

42. Leading questions

42. Leading questions

(1) A party may put a leading question to a witness in cross-examination unless the court disallows the question or directs the witness not to answer it.

(2) Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account in deciding whether to disallow the question or give such a direction, it is to take into account the extent to which-

(a) evidence that has been given by the witness in examination in chief is unfavourable to the party who called the witness; and

(b) the witness has an interest consistent with an interest of the cross-examiner; and

(c) the witness is sympathetic to the party conducting the cross-examination, either generally or about a particular matter; and

(d) the witness's age, or any mental, intellectual or physical disability to which the witness is subject, may affect the witness's answers.

(3) The court is to disallow the question, or direct the witness not to answer it, if the court is satisfied that the facts concerned would be better ascertained if leading questions were not used.

(4) This section does not limit the court's power to control leading questions.

Note

Leading question is defined in the Dictionary.

Read more...

37. Leading questions

37. Leading questions

(1) A leading question must not be put to a witness in examination in chief or in re-examination unless-

(a) the court gives leave; or

(b) the question relates to a matter introductory to the witness's evidence; or

(c) no objection is made to the question and (leaving aside the party conducting the examination in chief or re-examination) each other party to the proceeding is represented by an Australian legal practitioner, legal counsel or prosecutor; or

(d) the question relates to a matter that is not in dispute; or

(e) if the witness has specialised knowledge based on the witness's training, study or experience-the question is asked for the purpose of obtaining the witness's opinion about a hypothetical statement of facts, being facts in respect of which evidence has been, or is intended to be, given.

(2) Unless the court otherwise directs, subsection (1) does not apply in civil proceedings to a question that relates to an investigation, inspection or report that the witness made in the course of carrying out public or official duties.

(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent a court from exercising power under rules of court to allow a written statement or report to be tendered or treated as evidence in chief of its maker.

Note

Leading question is defined in the Dictionary.

Read more...
Related Articles


Related Article Widget by Hoctro

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP